pjroberge

Dear Ex, Rumor has it that after the peeler transcripts came out, Rosie was on a tear for weeks. I guess that my posting of the info below has made them a little upset. Perhaps it is also because of the comments GS posters have made about the truthfullness of Rosie's testamony.... 03-03-04 Rosalie Rivenbark's Handwritten note faxed to TWI's attorneys about the McMullen trial 2-17-04 The Doug McMullen Trial 1-27-04 The Way International's Property In The Toledo, Ohio Area 1-20-04 Peeler Case Evidentiary Hearing March 19, 2003 Court Testimony

TWI knows or should know that there are no assets that I possess that they will get if they win. My wife and I live very modestly and our net worth is below what TWI can attach by Vermont Law.....However, TWI's attorneys are raking in about $1000 an hour as there are 3 assigned to the case. Your ABS at work.....

regarding VPW's "doctorate" Many of us may have done the work to qualify for a specific degree. That doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was done under the supervision of an accredited institution as per their requirements. If I studied medicine on my own enough to know the material and started passing myself off as an MD, would that be fraud? The answer would be yes as evidenced by the handcuffs on your wrists as you are led away by the police who caught you pretending to be doctor .....

Tom, You hit the nail on the head. In any lawsuit, there are many more charges made than may stick. It is expected that some will be trimmed off. For example, I listed 3 grounds upon which TWI's trademark should be cancelled. By law, any one of them is sufficient to accomplish this. The most controversial has been the infamous # 45. It is grounds # 3 to cancel, namely bringing disrepute to a belief and so forth. 2 questions to ask yourself: #1) If you were a stranger on the street and a church said they were pentecostal, you would have a certain expectation of beliefs, or if the church was jewish another expectation, and if muslim etc. If someone said that there was a christian bible study, your expectation would be standard beliefs such as the trinity, 3 crucified, crosses, easter etc. Would TWI's alice in wonderland beliefs of eve being a lesbian etc. be what you expected? Would you feel that TWI misrepresented who they were and what they stand for? #2) If you were to look at TWI as an example of christianity, would you have a favorable opinion of christianity? If not, #3 of bringing disrepute to a belief is what we are talking about... And yes, I hope to have many things to talk about in front of the jury, who will be comprised of everyday folk who will be judging TWI by the way their attorney acts and the actual issues. When they hear for example that someone who may have travelled cross country to visit their childs grave, and then are denied access because they don't have an appointment. And then TWI hands them a cemetary policy sheet and says to make an appointment with alternate days, what do you think a jury will think about TWI?

Rafael, If you would have read the line 45 carefully, you would notice that it is a ground for the trademark to be cancelled. It has nothing to do with my personal experience. TWI made numerous public disparaging remarks from their pulpit about christian beliefs, and churches as a whole. They wrote books disparaging the beliefs. They sent ambassadors out to do it. The point that you miss is that it is not a complaint about my experience with TWI, it is about the grounds for cancelling the trademark. Read the heading above. What you or I believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is the corporate practice and how they did business with the public. I do not do business with the public, neither does your website. We freely offer our information and do not charge money under false pretenses. Enough of line 45. You want to discuss something important?

People are not devoting their money and years of their life to me.They did to TWI. That's the point. TWI gained financially by their deception. My or your beliefs again are irrelevant.

Raf, The counterclaim has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. And for the record,I have supported CES, CFF, and others even if I don't agree with their theology. If they at least try to act civillay towards others and are not cult-like. Look at my believers links page. The thrust is misrepresentation by TWI to the general public. If you advertise to the general public that you are a christian based group, and yet you desparage those orthodox christian beliefs, you are misrepresenting yourself to the public. And TWI misrepresented themselves as a Christian organization when in reality, monetary gain was their motivation for what they did, which is the issue I stated in the counterclaim.

Rascal, I htink you will find some of the points in my counterclaim rather interesting.

As per my promise, the documents regarding the lawsuit are posted at: http://www.excultworld.com/Roberge_TWI_Law...erge_vs_TWI.htm

Hey John, Hope you like to ski. Bring a warm jacket....

1) I do see what I am doing and check quite regularily with my minister who keeps me "regular" 2) I am not in any way consumed with anger towards TWI. Until they and other cults do what's right by their current and ex members, I will keep exposing them and making sport of them with political satire and other methods that are constitutionally guaranteed to us called free speech. 3) I have moved on with my life. I will not however, accomodate the evil doers and conveniently forget under the guise of moving on. 4) If TWI and other destructive cults wish the scrutiny to go away, then they should apologize, make ammends for their wrongs done to others, and genuinely change. Now, back to the subject of the thread. Does anyone think that TWI allowed Mrs. Wierwille's kids on grounds to remove her possessions?

oak: I asked questions that I believed were reasonable to ask. Dart comes back with his dark agendas theory. My answer was not a standard response to the criticism as you allege. The truth is I don't see the point in dart's wierd theory other than to try to derail the discussion to one about my so called dark agendas. So back to the thread, where did a house of Mrs. Wierwille's posessions go when her children are M&A and not allowed on grounds? Who is enjoying them or are they in storage somewhere?

Dart: Perhaps a question of where is your head at with imaginations of dark agendas and other stupidity.You sticking up for Harvey and the gang? Nursing homes have very little room for possessions and the question was a valid one to ask.

Since TWI has "moved" Mrs. Wierwille into the nursing home, who is now living in her home and enjoying her possessions? I also wonder if they let her keep her sentimental momentos like pictures etc. or did they toss them? Or did they put them into "storage", so that she can come and visit them sometime?

Rafael, Zixar and all, I have only discussed the legal points in this thread that TWI's attorneys already knew about. Now that the lawsuit over trademark infringement and cybersquatting has been officially served, I will not discuss anything further about what is coming until I file my answer to TWI's complaint. Many of you are concerned about my divulging my game plan, and at this point in the case, all information previously known to TWI's attorneys has been discussed. Anything else discussed would reveal the game plan. So until my papers are filed with the court, I will not discuss anything further. Rafael: Please do not be concerned. The lawyers I have consulted with are not amateurs Zixar, please do not be concerned.A note about legal wordings etc. Many if not most of the words used in legal statutes does not mean what it does in a standard english dictionary. In the legal profession, there is actually a legal dictionary that explains what the terms mean in the legal context, and it many times means something completely different. So, until I can discuss the case further, I bid you all farewell until I can discuss this further. Pat

long gone: I didn't say I was quoting the statute. I just stated the conditions of some of the statute in what some people commonly do called paraphrasing. You know, your deduction that improper spelling is an indication of it not being true is completely ignorant of you. I hand typed it, and people make mistakes. Wrong again 15 USCS § 1125 (2004) § 1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden (a) Civil action. (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which-- (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. (2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. (3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional. (b) Importation. Any goods marked or labeled in contravention of the provisions of this section shall not be imported into the United States or admitted to entry at any customhouse of the United States. The owner, importer, or consignee of goods refused entry at any customhouse under this section may have any recourse by protest or appeal that is given under the customs revenue laws or may have the remedy given by this Act in cases involving goods refused entry or seized. © Remedies for dilution of famous marks. (1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to-- (A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark; (B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used; © the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark; (D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used; (E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used; (F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought; (G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and (H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register. (2) In an action brought under this subsection, the owner of the famous mark shall be entitled only to injunctive relief as set forth in section 34 [15 USCS § 1116] unless the person against whom the injunction is sought willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark. If such willful intent is proven, the owner of the famous mark shall also be entitled to the remedies set forth in sections 35(a) and 36 [15 USCS §§ 1117(a), 1118], subject to the discretion of the court and the principles of equity. (3) The ownership by a person of a valid registration under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register shall be a complete bar to an action against that person, with respect to that mark, that is brought by another person under the common law or a statute of a State and that seeks to prevent dilution of the distinctiveness of a mark, label, or form of advertisement. (4) The following shall not be actionable under this section: (A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark. (B) Noncommercial use of a mark. © All forms of news reporting and news commentary. (d) Cyberpiracy prevention. (1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person-- (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that-- (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code. (B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to-- (I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name; (II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person; (III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; (V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site; (VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; (VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and (IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection ©(1) of section 43 [subsec. ©(1) of this section]. (ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. © In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. (D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee. (E) As used in this paragraph, the term "traffics in" refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.

The bad faith guidelines are that: 1) Registering the domain name without the intention of using it. I used the domain name so this proves good faith on my part. 2) Approaching only the copyright holder to buy it at a profit. Again, I offered it for sale at a public auction. Another statutory proof of good faith on my part. 3) Previous pattern or history of buying quantities of domain names for re-sale to the legitimate owners only at a profit. I have never done this.

From the complaint finally served today: As you can see, it is not as simple as a domain name...

Thank You no way

coolwaters: What use I might have for the domain name? How about my using it to direct people to information about TWI. That's why they went balistic, and why I have held onto the name. TWI as another poster has observed has purchased all the domain names that might be used to inform people about TWI, and started to do so before TWI had a reason to be on the net like a website . If you will recall, they were very against their people using the net..

Many of you have expressed concern about my giving TWI's lawyers my strategy. I have discussed only the points of law that I have discussed with them already. The rest will only be revealed at the right time. Don't worry...

adios: Thanks for the statute. Here is that part of my response to TWI previously long gone: Your last 2 posts were not accurate or worth responding too. You make wild accusations and say it is to give me a dose of reality. I appreciate a reasonable discussion but yours are not. BYE

Diazbro: Your observations are very perceptive and a welcome change from the people who want to make out to be the bad guy. When I used the domain name to legitematly point people to sources of info about TWI, they went for the lawsuit. I have a legitemate use for the domain name, and TWI doesn't like the use. It's that simple, and the use is not one that infringes on their trademark either. They know it, and I know it. The lawsuit is strictly harrassment....

Rafael: I have changed the wording but not the amounts of the first two choices. Quite frankly, people will probably cry foul over this next. You make a mistake and it is like pyrahnna smelling blood in the water. I don't believe that any remedy will satisfy this crowd. I tried to do a nice thing and include GS's in my decisions, and it has done has added grief to my day.

mark: Your posting was correct. Ever the negative poster on this issue, Long Gone will never admit that I have anything right in this matter. My application contrary to somone who has no idea about the circumstances, was proper and was supervised by a very experienced intellectual property attorney who has practiced before the US Supreme court winning several cases. As you stated accuratly, my application was found to not conflict with TWI's trademark, and if TWI didn't oppose it, would have been my trademark. In actuality, my proposed trademark would have been a much stronger one than TWI's generic and highly diluted "The Way" which would never had been approved today, especially if the true nature of the phrase was revealed in the application. Unfortunatly, TWI was willing to spend more money to mess with me than I had to fight them with, and wanted to disrupt my schooling during the summer semester where the classes are over in 1/2 the time, very intense and suicidal to miss even one class. They wanted to depose me for days over the trademark issue. Their real motive was not the trademark in my opinion, but a backwards way of looking at all my records which was part of their document request.